Jump to content

NickH

Member
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

NickH last won the day on September 16 2015

NickH had the most liked content!

About NickH

  • Rank
    Mimreg

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    Array

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  1. Who's being slavish? and why shouldn't it make sense in science fiction as opposed to science fantasy? The FSA game system, like most of the SG games, dictates that squadron size is a key part of game balance, I accept this, but it is very much a facet of game design and not sustained by the fluff. TBH I don't know why the ships were organised in 4s but I would guess it might be to ensure the squadrons remained effective with one ship out of action due to battle damage or periodic refits. It also allows the squadron to be manoeuvred as two pairs which is recognised as the best way to organise fighter aircraft (I'm not sure this is relevant to ships). From a pseudo-science point of view a squadron of 4 ships operating in a tetrahedron pattern with only 3 ships able to fire in any one direction would make some sense in a larger scale game like Halo. I guess what really bugs me is that squadron size seems so arbitrary, if faction X always used their cruisers in 3's because the president's dog only had 3 legs (or some more sensible reason) I could suspend my disbelief more easily.
  2. I sort of agree with this. The problems arise out when you try to resolve problems of detail, most tropes are simply *too wooly* to bear close scrutiny. If the Spartan's fluff both referenced back to specific tropes and then provided the Firestorm specific details in a consistent way that would be great… This is a very good point and would be true all discrete missile weapons. Wave based weapons (EG lasers & cyber) might make use of very precise timing of their weapon pulses to turn an entire squadron into a phased array for attacking a single target. This technique dates from the Vietnam War and is used in several current applications, the only SciFi setting I know that uses it are the flat panel phaser emitters in Star Trek.
  3. OK, but if you don't want to base it on established principals of the military art what are you going to base it on? I have seen several other rule sets, both historical & fictional, become self referential and drift off into a meta game that may benefit some vociferous players but generally reduces the fun for everybody else My reason for referencing back to historical conflicts is not to say that FSA must work like XYZ but to use history as a tangible point of comparison to better inform the discussion
  4. Sorry, I don't buy this, most historical naval formations contained at least four ships, ad-hoc task forces excluded. If any supplier told me that their software could only cope with 3 friendly ships I'd tell them to take a hike or have them shot for treason in wartime…
  5. On the whole I think FSA is a credible cinematic space combat game and that Spartan so a good job of mixing realism for old grognards (like me) and balance for more competitive players. What messes things up is that the linking/combining rules make squadron size a critical part of balancing the factions when, in a sustained conflict, it would probably have more to do with *what is still working?* It also ties SG's hands when it comes to packaging the various ships for sale.
  6. There's quite a lot about how UCS became mail order only in the Meeples & Miniatures Podcast 139 http://meeplesandminiatures.libsyn.com/rss
  7. Except that we've had folk arguing that a *bomber* is full of bombs when it is more likely festooned with missiles Names matter and carry meaning.
  8. That's exactly what SG did with Uncharted Seas… Interceptor is fine, bomber is inappropriate (gravity bombs are useless in space) and fighter is misleading
  9. Sorry, it doesn't. Modern air-to-air missile can sustain manoeuvres that would black out a human pilot and remotely piloted drones are getting to the stage of being comparable in effectiveness to manned aircraft. A society might be able to recruit as many Kamikaze pilots as it needs but they will still be combat ineffective if the enemy's craft can sustain five times as much acceleration The fluff strongly suggests that short ranged spacecraft are manned, we even have one specific exception in the case of Directorate drones.
  10. Lucas basically INVENTED the SRS (or whatever) as a SciFi trope, before that all we had was the USS Enterprise If you do the (nerdy) calculations (economic, technical and social) manned SRS could do nothing that unmanned missiles could not do better, cheaper and with fewer casualties to the using faction
  11. In an attempt to clarify the discussion I deliberately chose very basic names for the three roles, I had already made some suggestions for renaming the current SRS types. I agree that naming is important, that is why I think *Bomber* must be changed because it is the only type that describes *how* the type functions and not just what it does, The B29 would have been an awful aircraft for attacking ships or submarines, it's just too big.
  12. It would have to be early Pacific War later on, with advances in defensive capabilities, huge numbers of aircraft to have any effect at all. I also agree that, from a scientific/engineering point of view SRS (and boarding) make no sense but thanks to Mr. Lucas we are stuck with them. Repair and assault could probably be handled by abstracted MARs than pushing counters around which would leave 3 types of SRS: Attack Defence Mixed
  13. Me neither, it seems to exist in the gap between FSA and Planetfall where combat should be dominated by orbital mechanics Some cool but completely impractical spaceship designs though.
  14. My personal view: It might help to rename the 5 types as *bomber* is too specific on *how* it performs an attack (keep the initial letters unique). Fighter -> Patrol (like WW2 PT boats and the USAAF *P* designation for fighters) Interceptor -> Interceptor (or Fighter) Bomber -> Striker Assault Craft -> Assault (craft) Support Shuttle -> Utility (shuttle) Only Patrol and Interceptor SRS should be able to use their PD offensively. The ability to make combined attacks by multiple SRS tokens should be a faction specific upgrade*. *At the beginning of WW2 this was probably Japan's biggest advantage over everybody else. I can think of many other detail changes (spotters, jammers etc.) but most of them would just clog up the game. I don't feel qualified to talk on overall balance as I don't have experience of playing enough different factions and none of playing competitively.
  15. In the 20+ years they have been playing FT they have *broken* the system several times and contributed to the online community that unofficially maintains the rules. Using vector movement a *slug* like the one you describe would be very easy to avoid or outmanoeuvre and would be horribly vulnerable to any of the weapons that ignore armour. It might not die in one turn but a well designed swarm could probably force it to take a threshold check every turn. The FT small craft rules are the area that has changed most, the one the club currently use make small craft useful, but not overwhelming, in small numbers but are rather time consuming (like FSA v1 SRS). In terms of balance it's definitely the weakest area of the rules.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.